The risks and rewards of identity politics

My polite Canadian sensibilities were thrown for a loop the other day in the Tim Horton’s drive-thru. In the line ahead of me was a pick-up truck with a red Canadian flag bumper sticker emblazoned with the words, “I Love Canada — Fit In or [email protected]*k Off”.

And yes, it was startling. It’s a cliché, but we usually don’t associate vulgar displays of jingoism with Canadians. When did we start turning into Texas?

We’re about to find out just how deeply rooted such sentiments are in Canadian politics, and whether playing off them can be a winning strategy. Recent comments by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander about Muslim women wearing face-coverings while swearing the oath of citizenship have turned a Quebec political issue — the so-called “reasonable accommodation” of minorities — into a national ballot question. The language used by Harper and Alexander was far more slick than that bumper-sticker, but the core message — about “loving Canada” and “fitting in” — is much the same.

Earlier this month, Harper vowed to appeal a court ruling that overturned his government’s ban on the wearing of niqabs or face covers during citizenship ceremonies — claiming that it’s “offensive” to hide one’s identity while joining “the Canadian family”. Alexander took it further, sending out an email to Conservative supporters urging them to sign an online petition banning hijabs during oath-swearing ceremonies (the Conservatives never miss an opening to raise funds and pad their voter database).

The issue of head and face coverings has been around for a while — particularly in Quebec, where it came to the fore with the provincial election debate over the Parti Québécois’ government’s so-called ‘values charter’. Through the charter, the government of Pauline Marois attempted to ban the wearing of most religious symbols in the public service. Marois and her ministers claimed the charter was a reflection of shared values; it was also in no small way an attempt to make people “fit in” to Quebec society as narrowly conceived by a secular elite.

At first, the charter was good politics and polled well. But as opposition voices grew louder, support shrank. Many, including Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, went so far as to attribute Marois’s crushing defeat to blowback over the values charter.

Sure, the Conservatives may be playing on fears and unstated prejudices. But there’s a political risk inherent in dismissing those fears and prejudices without confronting them — in allowing ignorance to fester below the surface and voice itself in chauvinistic bumper stickers.

That may be so — but if there is a strong undercurrent of deep ambivalence about immigration and Islam among portions of the electorate, one election isn’t going to make it go away. The fundraising email sent out by the Conservatives mentioned “people wear(ing) the hijab while taking the oath”. The case the government is appealing involves a woman who wore a niqab; the hijab usually only covers the head and hair, while the niqab covers most of the face.

So why did the Conservatives target the hijab? The choice of word probably wasn’t accidental — and probably wasn’t meant to suggest a ban on all religious headgear during oath-taking ceremonies. Most non-Muslim Canadians couldn’t tell the difference between a niqab and a hijab without looking at a picture. But the word ‘hijab’ is more widely known and — fair or not — has come to symbolize for many a sexist and oppressive element of Islam. The term also has an added messaging bonus — it just happens to be an near-anagram of ‘jihad’.

A sizeable number of Canadians have genuine concerns about Islam. Some may even view certain of its manifestations, including the wearing of a niqab, as un-Canadian. Sure, the Conservatives may be playing on fears and unstated prejudices. But there’s a political risk inherent in dismissing those fears and prejudices without confronting them — in allowing ignorance to fester below the surface and voice itself in chauvinistic bumper stickers.

What happened with the values charter in Quebec? Remember, the Marois government introduced it because it thought it had a winner — and in the early stages of the election campaign, that’s what it looked like. But then something happened: The discussion, dialogue and opposition it provoked brought together individuals and groups from diverse cultural backgrounds — all rallying around the shared value of tolerance. Intended to draw neat lines around what is and isn’t Quebec culture, the charter managed to unite a plurality of Quebecers against it.

Which is what happens sometimes when unspoken prejudices are uttered aloud — people are forced to confront what they think in the daylight of community opinion. Right now, the federal parties are road-testing their messages for the election campaign. The Conservatives, like all the parties, always need issues they can exploit to fire up their base — and going after un-Canadian outliers has worked for them in the past.

But a message intended for core or regional audiences can linger, and turn into a liability in the heat of a campaign. The question now is how far the Conservatives can push the “I love Canada — fit in” slogan before voters tell them to [email protected]*k off.

Geoffrey Hall is a political consultant and writer. Over three decades he has worked with, advised or ghostwritten for some of Canada’s leading progressive voices, including Jack Layton, Bob Rae, Alexa McDonough and Audrey McLaughlin. In 2014 he left the Hill after nearly 15 years of writing for and advising several NDP Members of Parliament. [email protected]

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.